Scoping Review vs Meta-Analysis: Clarifying Their Distinct Roles in Evidence Synthesis

Researchers often use the terms scoping review and meta-analysis as if they were interchangeable approaches to summarizing literature. They are not. A scoping review maps the breadth of evidence on a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines numerical results from eligible studies to produce a pooled estimate. The choice between them depends entirely on the research question you are asking. If you need to know what evidence exists, what concepts have been studied, and where gaps remain, a scoping review is the appropriate method. If you need a quantitative answer about the size of an effect across multiple studies, a meta-analysis is the appropriate method. This article explains the distinct purposes, processes, and outputs of each approach, provides a side-by-side comparison, and offers a decision framework to help you select the right method for your research question.

Understanding the Evidence Synthesis Landscape

Evidence synthesis refers to the family of methods used to bring together findings from multiple studies to answer a specific question. The evidence synthesis ecosystem includes systematic reviews, scoping reviews, mapping reviews, evidence and gap maps, overviews, and meta-analyses. Each method serves a different purpose and produces a different type of output. Scoping reviews and meta-analyses sit at opposite ends of this spectrum in terms of their analytical depth and their relationship to numerical data.

Scoping reviews are a relatively recent addition to the evidence synthesis toolkit. They emerged as researchers recognized that some questions cannot be answered by a traditional systematic review because the literature is too broad, too heterogeneous, or too underdeveloped. The purpose of a scoping review is to identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, within or across defined contexts. This mapping function means scoping reviews can contribute to clinical practice guideline development, inform policy making, reduce research waste by eliminating duplication of research effort, and serve as a precursor to a systematic review or further primary research.

Meta-analyses, by contrast, are a statistical technique applied within a systematic review. A meta-analysis combines the numerical results of multiple studies that address the same question and uses statistical methods to calculate a pooled effect estimate. The key requirement for a meta-analysis is that the included studies must be sufficiently similar in their design, population, intervention, and outcome measures to justify combining their results. When studies are too heterogeneous, a meta-analysis may not be appropriate, and a narrative synthesis may be used instead.

The distinction matters because researchers frequently select the wrong method for their question. Guidance published in BMC Medical Research Methodology notes that researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts, or investigate research conduct. The same guidance emphasizes that scoping reviews require rigorous and transparent methods to ensure trustworthy results, even though they are conducted for different purposes than systematic reviews.

Core Differences Between Scoping Reviews and Meta-Analyses

The fundamental difference between a scoping review and a meta-analysis lies in their objectives. A scoping review asks broad exploratory questions such as "What is known about this topic?" or "What types of evidence exist in this field?" A meta-analysis asks a narrow quantitative question such as "What is the pooled effect of this intervention compared to that intervention across all eligible studies?"

This difference in objectives drives differences in every subsequent stage of the review process. The research question for a scoping review is typically broad and may not include a specific population, intervention, comparator, and outcome structure. The research question for a meta-analysis must be narrowly defined with explicit eligibility criteria that allow studies to be compared statistically.

The inclusion criteria also differ. Scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources such as policy documents. Meta-analyses typically include only quantitative studies, most often randomized controlled trials or observational studies with comparable outcome measures.

The output of a scoping review is a map of the evidence: a description of the volume, nature, and characteristics of the literature, often presented as tables, charts, or a narrative summary. The output of a meta-analysis is a pooled effect estimate with a confidence interval, often presented as a forest plot. The meta-analysis may also include subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and assessments of heterogeneity and publication bias.

Quality appraisal is another point of divergence. Scoping reviews generally do not assess the methodological quality of included studies as a primary objective, because their purpose is to map the evidence instead of to evaluate its trustworthiness. Meta-analyses routinely assess risk of bias in included studies and may exclude studies at high risk of bias or conduct sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the pooled estimate.

At a Glance: Scoping Review vs Meta-Analysis

When to Choose a Scoping Review

Scoping reviews are particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or when the literature exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature that is not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. The guidance from the International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare describes scoping reviews as commonly used for reconnaissance, to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field.

You should consider a scoping review when your research question involves any of the following objectives. First, you want to identify knowledge gaps in a field where the literature is fragmented or emerging. Second, you want to clarify key concepts or definitions that are used inconsistently across the literature. Third, you want to examine how research is conducted on a particular topic, including the types of study designs used and the settings where research has been performed. Fourth, you want to determine whether a full systematic review is feasible and what its scope should be.

Scoping reviews can also be undertaken as exercises in their own right, also as precursors to systematic reviews. They can summarize and disseminate research findings, identify research gaps, and make recommendations for future research. The JBI evidence synthesis guidance notes that scoping reviews provide a comprehensive overview to address broader review questions than traditionally more specific systematic reviews of effectiveness or qualitative evidence.

A practical example illustrates the appropriate use of a scoping review. A research team wants to understand the evidence on chrono-nutrition and sleep, including the multiple dimensions of meal timing, irregular eating patterns, and frequency of eating occasions. The literature is heterogeneous, spans multiple study designs, and has grown rapidly in recent years. A scoping review conducted on this topic described the extent, range, and nature of the existing literature, breaking down included studies according to three major chrono-nutritional dimensions. This mapping approach would not have been possible with a meta-analysis because the studies were too diverse in their designs and outcomes to combine statistically.

Another example comes from a scoping review on toilet postures and associated health outcomes. The review synthesized evidence on digestive, musculoskeletal, and ergonomic health outcomes associated with squatting and sitting toilet postures, while also exploring related health impacts and design considerations. The review included 42 studies and concluded that methodological limitations, including small sample sizes and inadequate control of confounders, precluded definitive conclusions. This type of broad mapping across multiple outcome domains is a hallmark of scoping review methodology.

When to Choose a Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis is appropriate when you have a focused question about the effect of an intervention or the strength of an association, and when multiple studies have measured the same outcome in comparable ways. The purpose of a meta-analysis is to increase statistical power, improve the precision of effect estimates, and resolve uncertainty when individual studies report conflicting results.

Consider the example of a meta-analysis on purpose in life and mortality. The researchers combined individual-participant data from eight ongoing longitudinal studies with findings from a systematic review of the published literature, yielding 25 samples with 488,765 participants and 48,928 deaths. The meta-analysis produced a pooled hazard ratio of 0.76, indicating that purpose in life was associated with approximately 30 percent lower risk of earlier mortality. This quantitative answer could not have been produced by a scoping review, which would have mapped the literature but not generated a pooled estimate.

A second example comes from dentistry. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether digital scanning techniques provide better marginal and internal fit for zirconia CAD-CAM restorations compared to conventional impression techniques. The meta-analysis pooled data from ten clinical studies and found that digital scanning resulted in significantly improved marginal fit and internal fit. The pooled mean differences with confidence intervals provided clinicians with a quantitative basis for choosing between recording techniques.

A third example involves ketamine and esketamine for preventing postanesthetic shivering in cesarean delivery. The meta-analysis included 12 randomized controlled trials involving 1,683 patients and found that ketamine and esketamine significantly reduced the incidence of shivering compared to placebo. The analysis also used meta-regression and logistic regression to establish dose-response relationships, demonstrating the analytical depth that meta-analysis can achieve.

These examples illustrate the defining characteristic of meta-analysis: it produces a numerical answer with a measure of uncertainty. If your research question requires this type of answer, a meta-analysis is the appropriate method. If your research question requires a map of the evidence landscape, a scoping review is the appropriate method.

The Relationship Between Scoping Reviews and Systematic Reviews

Understanding the relationship between scoping reviews and systematic reviews is essential for choosing the right method. A systematic review is a broader category that includes meta-analysis as one possible component. A systematic review aims to answer a specific research question by identifying, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies. A meta-analysis is the statistical synthesis component that may be included in a systematic review when the studies are sufficiently homogeneous.

Scoping reviews share some methodological features with systematic reviews, including systematic searching, screening, and data extraction. However, scoping reviews differ in their objectives and in the way they handle the evidence. The guidance from BMC Medical Research Methodology notes that scoping reviews may be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions.

The distinction between scoping reviews and systematic reviews is sometimes blurred in practice. Researchers may conduct scoping reviews for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice versa. The availability of clear guidance on when to choose each approach is intended to reduce this problem. The guidance emphasizes that scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy.

A scoping review can be particularly valuable before undertaking a systematic review with meta-analysis. By mapping the literature, a scoping review can confirm that enough studies exist to justify a meta-analysis, identify the range of outcome measures used, and inform the development of eligibility criteria. This preparatory role can save time and resources by preventing a systematic review that cannot be completed due to insufficient or incompatible evidence.

Methodological Frameworks for Scoping Reviews

The methodological foundation for scoping reviews was established by Arksey and O'Malley, whose framework has been widely adopted and adapted. The JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group developed guidance for scoping reviews that received minor updates in 2017 and was most recently updated in 2020. The updates reflect ongoing developments in scoping review conduct and reporting, including the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews, known as PRISMA-ScR.

The JBI guidance describes scoping reviews as an increasingly common approach to informing decision-making and research based on the identification and examination of the literature on a given topic or issue. The guidance emphasizes that scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources such as policy. This breadth of evidence sources distinguishes scoping reviews from systematic reviews of effectiveness, which typically focus on specific study designs.

The PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline provides a checklist for reporting scoping reviews. Following this guideline helps ensure that scoping reviews are reported with sufficient transparency and completeness to be useful to readers and to be reproducible. The JBI guidance notes that the increasing popularity of scoping reviews has been accompanied by the development of this reporting guideline.

Practical guidance for conducting scoping reviews is available from multiple sources. A discussion paper in the Journal of Advanced Nursing provides guidance for researchers and clinicians preparing to undertake a scoping review, covering each component of the process including developing research questions and objectives, protocol development, developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach, searching and selecting the evidence, extracting and analysing evidence, presenting results, and summarizing the evidence. The paper emphasizes that scoping reviews must be conducted with rigour and transparency, despite criticism of the methodology across multiple academic and clinical disciplines.

Practical Workflow for Conducting a Scoping Review

Conducting a scoping review requires a systematic approach that mirrors the rigor of a systematic review while adapting to the broader scope of the research question. The following workflow describes the key steps.

The first step is to assemble a research team with complementary skills and expertise. The BMC Medical Research Methodology guidance recommends drawing on the expertise of external partners, particularly practitioners, decision-makers, and commissioners who will be translating findings into practice. This team-based approach helps ensure that the scoping review addresses questions that matter to end users and that the findings will be useful.

The second step is to develop the research question and objectives. The research question for a scoping review should be broad enough to capture the range of evidence but focused enough to be manageable. The objectives should specify what the review aims to map, such as the types of evidence, the populations studied, the interventions or exposures examined, and the outcomes reported.

The third step is to develop and pre-register the review protocol. Pre-registration involves documenting the planned methods before conducting the review, which enhances transparency and reduces the risk of bias. The protocol should specify the eligibility criteria, the search strategy, the data extraction approach, and the planned analysis.

The fourth step is to develop the eligibility criteria and the planned search approach. Eligibility criteria for scoping reviews are typically broader than for systematic reviews and may include a range of study designs and evidence sources. The search strategy should be comprehensive and may involve multiple databases, hand searching, and snowballing from reference lists.

The fifth step is to search and select the evidence. Two reviewers should independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts against the eligibility criteria. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. The selection process should be documented using a PRISMA-style flow diagram.

The sixth step is to extract and analyse the evidence. Data extraction for scoping reviews typically captures descriptive information about each included study, such as the study design, population, setting, intervention or exposure, and outcomes. The analysis is primarily descriptive and may involve grouping studies by key characteristics and presenting the results in tables and charts.

The seventh step is to present the results and summarize the evidence. The output of a scoping review should provide a clear map of the evidence landscape, including the volume of literature, the types of studies conducted, the populations studied, and the gaps that remain. The summary should address the research question and provide recommendations for future research.

Practical Workflow for Conducting a Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis is typically conducted within the framework of a systematic review. The workflow begins with a focused research question, often structured using the PICO framework, which specifies the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes. The question must be narrow enough to allow meaningful comparison of results across studies.

The first step is to develop a protocol that specifies the eligibility criteria, search strategy, data extraction approach, and planned statistical analysis. The protocol should be pre-registered to enhance transparency. The search should be comprehensive and cover multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, and other relevant sources.

The second step is to screen and select studies according to the eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria for a meta-analysis must be specific enough to ensure that included studies are sufficiently similar to justify combining their results. Key considerations include the study design, the population, the intervention and comparator, and the outcome measures.

The third step is to assess the risk of bias in included studies. Standardized tools are used depending on the study design. Randomized controlled trials may be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, while nonrandomized studies may be assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The results of the risk of bias assessment should inform the analysis, for example through sensitivity analyses that exclude studies at high risk of bias.

The fourth step is to extract the data needed for the meta-analysis. This includes the effect estimates and measures of variability from each study. Data extraction should be performed independently by two reviewers to reduce errors.

The fifth step is to perform the statistical analysis. The analysis involves calculating a pooled effect estimate using either a fixed-effect or random-effects model. The choice of model depends on the degree of heterogeneity among the included studies. Heterogeneity should be assessed using statistical measures such as the I-squared statistic. The results should be presented in a forest plot showing the individual study estimates and the pooled estimate.

The sixth step is to conduct additional analyses to test the robustness of the findings. These may include subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and assessments of publication bias. The conclusions should be framed in light of the quality and quantity of the evidence.

Decision Framework for Selecting the Appropriate Review Type

Selecting the appropriate review type requires a clear understanding of your research question and the state of the literature. The following decision framework can help you choose between a scoping review and a meta-analysis.

Start by articulating your research question in writing. Ask yourself what you need to know. If you need to know what evidence exists on a topic, what concepts have been studied, what populations have been included, and where gaps remain, a scoping review is appropriate. If you need to know the size of an effect or the strength of an association, a meta-analysis is appropriate.

Next, assess the state of the literature. If the body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or if it exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review, a scoping review is appropriate. If multiple studies have measured the same outcome in comparable ways, a meta-analysis may be feasible.

Consider whether you have the resources and expertise for each approach. A scoping review requires systematic searching and screening but does not require statistical expertise. A meta-analysis requires statistical expertise and access to appropriate software. Both approaches require substantial time and effort.

Consider whether the evidence is likely to be sufficiently homogeneous for a meta-analysis. If the studies vary widely in their designs, populations, interventions, and outcome measures, a meta-analysis may not be appropriate. In such cases, a scoping review can map the evidence and identify the range of approaches used.

Finally, consider the purpose of your review. If you are conducting the review to inform a decision about whether a full systematic review is warranted, a scoping review is the appropriate first step. If you are conducting the review to provide a quantitative answer to a focused question, a meta-analysis is appropriate.

Common Failure Patterns in Review Selection and Conduct

Researchers encounter several common failure patterns when selecting and conducting scoping reviews and meta-analyses. Recognizing these patterns can help you avoid them.

The first failure pattern is conducting a scoping review when a systematic review with meta-analysis is needed. This occurs when a researcher has a focused question about intervention effectiveness but chooses a scoping review because it appears less demanding. The result is a map of the evidence that does not answer the quantitative question. The guidance from BMC Medical Research Methodology explicitly warns against scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review.

The second failure pattern is conducting a meta-analysis when the studies are too heterogeneous to combine. This occurs when a researcher pools results from studies with different designs, populations, interventions, or outcome measures. The result is a pooled estimate that is meaningless or misleading. The assessment of heterogeneity is essential before deciding whether a meta-analysis is appropriate.

The third failure pattern is conducting a scoping review without adequate rigor. Scoping reviews are sometimes perceived as easier than systematic reviews, leading to less rigorous searching, screening, and reporting. The guidance from multiple sources emphasizes that scoping reviews require rigorous and transparent methods to ensure trustworthy results.

The fourth failure pattern is failing to pre-register the review protocol. Pre-registration enhances transparency and reduces the risk of bias. The BMC Medical Research Methodology guidance recommends pre-registering the review protocol and keeping a detailed record of all steps and decisions.

The fifth failure pattern is inadequate team composition. Scoping reviews and meta-analyses require diverse skills, including content expertise, methodological expertise, and statistical expertise. The BMC Medical Research Methodology guidance recommends assembling a research team with complementary skills and expertise and drawing on the expertise of external partners.

Records and Measurements for Review Quality

Maintaining detailed records is essential for both scoping reviews and meta-analyses. The records serve multiple purposes: they document the decisions made during the review, they provide the basis for reproducibility, and they support the reporting of the review according to established guidelines.

For scoping reviews, the key records include the review protocol, the search strategy for each database, the screening decisions at each stage, the data extraction forms, and the charting tables that summarize the extracted data. The PRISMA-ScR guideline provides a framework for reporting scoping reviews and specifies the items that should be reported.

For meta-analyses, the key records include the review protocol, the search strategy, the screening decisions, the risk of bias assessments, the data extraction forms, and the statistical analysis code. The PRISMA guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses provides a framework for reporting.

The measurements used in a meta-analysis include the effect estimates from each study, the measures of variability, and the assessment of heterogeneity. The I-squared statistic quantifies the percentage of variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity instead of chance. The assessment of publication bias may involve funnel plots and statistical tests.

For scoping reviews, the measurements are primarily descriptive. They include the number of studies identified, the number included, the distribution of study designs, the populations studied, the settings, and the outcomes reported. These descriptive measurements form the basis of the evidence map.

Quality and Reporting Standards

Both scoping reviews and meta-analyses should be reported according to established guidelines. The EQUATOR Network serves as a repository of reporting guidelines for health research and can help researchers identify the appropriate guideline for their review type.

For scoping reviews, the PRISMA-ScR guideline is the relevant reporting standard. The JBI evidence synthesis guidance describes the development of this guideline and emphasizes that scoping reviews should be reported with sufficient detail to be transparent and reproducible. The Journal of Advanced Nursing guidance similarly references the PRISMA-ScR as the reporting standard for scoping reviews.

For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the PRISMA guideline is the relevant reporting standard. The guideline specifies the items that should be reported, including the search strategy, the study selection process, the risk of bias assessment, and the statistical analysis.

The NCBI Literature Resources and PubMed provide access to the published literature on review methodology and reporting standards. Researchers can use these resources to identify methodological guidance and examples of well-conducted reviews.

The Research Data Framework from the National Institute of Standards and Technology addresses the management of research data, which is relevant to the data management aspects of conducting reviews. The Experimental Design Assistant from NC3Rs provides support for designing experiments, which is relevant to the primary research that reviews synthesize.

Limitations and Professional Escalation Criteria

Both scoping reviews and meta-analyses have limitations that researchers should acknowledge. Scoping reviews provide a map of the evidence but do not provide quantitative answers about effect sizes. They also generally do not assess the quality of included studies, which means they cannot tell you how trustworthy the evidence is. The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology guidance acknowledges that scoping reviews face methodological challenges and that further research is needed to provide clarity on these challenges.

Meta-analyses are limited by the quality and homogeneity of the included studies. A meta-analysis cannot overcome the limitations of the primary studies. If the primary studies are at high risk of bias, the pooled estimate will also be at risk of bias. If the studies are too heterogeneous, the pooled estimate may not be meaningful. The meta-analysis on color agreement between evaluation pastes and resin cements reported high heterogeneity, with an I-squared value of 96.76 percent, which limits the confidence in the pooled estimate.

Professional escalation criteria apply when the limitations of a review approach threaten the validity of the conclusions. You should escalate to a methodological expert or statistician when you are uncertain about the appropriateness of a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity, when the risk of bias in included studies is high, or when the search strategy may have missed important studies. You should escalate when a scoping review reveals that the literature is too sparse or too heterogeneous to support a systematic review, and when the findings of the review are likely to inform high-stakes decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between a scoping review and a meta-analysis?

A scoping review maps the breadth and nature of evidence on a topic, identifying what studies exist, what concepts have been studied, and where gaps remain. A meta-analysis statistically combines numerical results from multiple studies to produce a pooled effect estimate. The scoping review answers questions about the evidence landscape, while the meta-analysis answers questions about the size of an effect.

Can a scoping review include a meta-analysis?

A scoping review does not include a meta-analysis because the purposes of the two methods are different. A scoping review aims to map the evidence, not to combine it statistically. If the evidence identified in a scoping review is sufficiently homogeneous and addresses a focused question, the scoping review may serve as a precursor to a systematic review with meta-analysis.

When should I choose a scoping review instead of a systematic review?

Choose a scoping review when your purpose is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts, or investigate research conduct. Choose a systematic review when your purpose is to answer a specific question about the effects of an intervention or the strength of an association. Scoping reviews are appropriate when the literature is broad, heterogeneous, or not yet comprehensively reviewed.

When is a meta-analysis not appropriate?

A meta-analysis is not appropriate when the included studies are too heterogeneous in their designs, populations, interventions, or outcome measures to justify combining their results. A meta-analysis is also not appropriate when the body of evidence is too small or when the primary studies are at high risk of bias. In these situations, a narrative synthesis or a scoping review may be more appropriate.

Do scoping reviews assess the quality of included studies?

Scoping reviews generally do not assess the methodological quality of included studies as a primary objective. The purpose of a scoping review is to map the evidence, not to evaluate its trustworthiness. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses routinely assess risk of bias in included studies and use this assessment to inform the analysis.

What reporting guidelines apply to scoping reviews and meta-analyses?

The PRISMA-ScR guideline applies to scoping reviews. The PRISMA guideline applies to systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The EQUATOR Network provides access to these and other reporting guidelines. Following the appropriate reporting guideline helps ensure that the review is reported with sufficient transparency and completeness.

Can a scoping review be used as a precursor to a meta-analysis?

Yes, a scoping review can be used as a precursor to a systematic review with meta-analysis. The scoping review can confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions, identify the range of outcome measures used in the literature, and determine whether enough studies exist to justify a meta-analysis. This preparatory role can save time and resources.

What are the main limitations of scoping reviews and meta-analyses?

Scoping reviews provide a map of the evidence but do not provide quantitative answers about effect sizes and generally do not assess the quality of included studies. Meta-analyses are limited by the quality and homogeneity of the included studies and cannot overcome the limitations of the primary studies. Both approaches require rigorous methods and transparent reporting to produce trustworthy results.

Related Articles

• Quantitative Research
• Quantitative Research
• Quantitative Research
• How Animals Help Ecosystems: The Roles They Play
• Genome Browsers for Researchers: A Guide to Inspecting Genomic Evidence

References and Further Reading

• Research Data Framework. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Experimental Design Assistant. NC3Rs.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
• Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.. BMC medical research methodology, 2018.
• Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.. JBI evidence synthesis, 2020.
• "How-to": scoping review?. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2024.
• Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.. International journal of evidence-based healthcare, 2015.
• Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.. Journal of advanced nursing, 2021.
• Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services.. BMC medical research methodology, 2020.
• Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.. JBI evidence implementation, 2021.
• Methodology Clarification for a Nursing Scoping Review.. The Journal of nursing education, 2023.
• Purpose in life and mortality: A meta-analysis of the published literature and individual-participant data of 488,765 participants followed for up to 32 years.. 2026.
• Marginal and internal fit of zirconia CAD-CAM fabricated with conventional impression and digital scanning techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis.. 2026.
• Efficacy and safety of ketamine and esketamine for the prevention of postanesthetic shivering in cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. 2026.
• Color agreement between evaluation pastes and resin cements used with ceramic restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.. 2026.
• Systematic Review vs Scoping Review: Systematic Review with ☸️SAIMSARA.. SAIMSARA Journal, 2026.
• Discontinuation of Classic Toy Play vs. Digital Play Among 8-10-Year-Old Children: A Systematic Scoping Review. Societies, 2025.
• Shifting Perspectives on the Role of Tocotrienol vs. Tocopherol in Brain Health: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2025.
• Chrono-nutrition and sleep: lessons from the temporal feature of eating patterns in human studies - A systematic scoping review. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 2024.
• Sitting vs. squatting: a scoping review of toilet postures and associated health outcomes. BMC Public Health, 2025.
• Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Systematic Reviews, 2021.
• From Arksey and O'Malley and Beyond: Customizations to enhance a team-based, mixed approach to scoping review methodology. Methodsx, 2021.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.